This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code’s sovereign‑immunity waiver applies to Indian tribes because they are governments, so § 106(a) unmistakably abrogates tribal sovereign immunity.
Background and question before the Court
The petitioners are the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.
Brian W. Coughlin, the respondent, fled a motion in Bankruptcy Court seeking to enforce the automatic stay and recover damages.
According to Petitioners, petitioners allege that after filing for bankruptcy, the creditor continued to contact Coughlin, leading to a suicide attempt.
The central legal question is whether the phrase “other foreign or domestic government” in the Bankruptcy Code’s sovereign‑immunity waiver includes Indian tribes.
What each side argues
Petitioners – Mr. Shah
Mr. Shah argued that Congress should have clearly included Indian tribes within the Bankruptcy Code’s sovereign‑immunity waiver, consistent with the Court’s longstanding jurisprudence.
Petitioners – Lac du Flambeau Band
According to Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, the tribe contended that the catch‑all phrase “other foreign or domestic government” can be read to include only entities that are purely foreign or purely domestic, thereby excluding tribes.
What happened at oral argument
Amicus counsel Austin Raynor argued for the United States in support of the respondent.
Justices asked several questions about whether Congress intended the Bankruptcy Code to cover tribes, the clarity of the statutory language, and the potential impact on tribal benefits.
What the Court decided
The majority held that the Bankruptcy Code’s § 106(a) unequivocally abrogates sovereign immunity of all governments, and because tribes are governments, it also abrogates tribal sovereign immunity.
Justice Thomas, in a concurrence, agreed that the statutory provisions extend to all governments and declined to read any ambiguity into the language.
Why it matters
The ruling means that Indian tribes cannot claim sovereign immunity in bankruptcy cases, allowing creditors to pursue claims against tribal assets.
According to United States (amicus curiae), the United States amicus argued that the Bankruptcy Code’s sovereign‑immunity waiver unambiguously encompasses all governments, including Indian tribes.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 139cac89a02b7de3a3ec-r1-16c1f18c99c2c0b3.pdforal argument transcript
- 1b840c30c1cd1121487c-r1-f35ba1fba948c11f.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.